On Research&#8230;

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
2 Comments »

The Initiation . . .

In past cultures, it might have been a trial by ordeal — a test of adulthood or a demonstration that a person was coming of age and earning respect before the elders.

Kikuyu Tribe initiation, 1903 On college campuses, it’s called the thesis or dissertation defense.

In academe, where the majority have themselves run this gauntlet, we tend to see the event as ordinary, the end-stage of the process leading to a graduate degree, and the first real benchmark in attaining a recognized expertise.

People outside the academy don’t really understand. Insiders too often forget its import. And those enduring it often feel naked at the podium.

Depending on the degree, students can spend two to five years building up to this moment where everything seems to be on the line. More frighteningly - it is! For an hour or two or three, the candidate explains research that has filled his or her world and faces often unpredictable questions. It is a solitary chore and failure here means a major delay - of even the demise - of the dreams of a degree.

Depending on the discipline, the defense can be intimate, with just the student’s graduate committee at hand. In other regimes, it is public, as it was when Aron Buffen stood center stage in Mendenhall two weeks ago. Before several senior faculty, two center directors, other scientists and graduate students, he explained what Peruvian ice cores told him about past weather, and what that might mean in predicting the future.

Few, beyond Buffen, saw this as a seminal event.

Why do we do it this way? Graduate School Dean Pat Osmer says that centuries-old tradition plays some role, but that there’s more to it than that.

“This is very much in line with what a scholar does in professional life. We’re being scrutinized all the time. We have to be able to present our work to peers and then defend it strongly,” adding that good graduate programs provide ample chances to practice this before the “defense.”

“It gets worse after graduation,” he says, “and the stakes are much, much higher.”

As for Aron, he’s relieved that it’s over. In fact, he characterized the experience as a “victory lap,” largely because “no one in the room knows more about the work than you do.” Eventually, he expects to continue towards a doctorate but for now, he’s anticipating a little time off.

Oh yeah, he passed.__Earle Holland

#

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Science policy by earleholland
No Comments »

The Art of Listening

A couple of weeks ago, famed NASA climate scientist James Hansen gave the annual Bownocker Lectures for the School of Earth Sciences.

NASA's James Hansen Hansen’s opposition to NASA’s attempt to stifle climate change discussion that opposed current administration policy led to the resignation of a senior NASA public affairs official and a reworking of the agency’s policy on scientists talking to the news media.

That episode has fueled a new book, “Censoring Science,” by author Mark Bowen, whose 2005 book, “Thin Ice,” chronicled OSU geologist Lonnie Thompson’s research efforts for the last quarter-century.

Along with his two lectures — one more technical and a second aimed at the general public — Hansen appeared on WOSU-AM’s “Open Line.” With Hansen as a guest, host Fred Andrle dove into the controversy surrounding climate change research.

Once Andrle opened the conversation up to callers, first in line was a regular called “Bob” who often played the contrarian role when the topic touched on climate change.

After firing his first volley of five or six arguments against global warming, Hansen responded simply that, “It would’ve been nice if you had come to one of my talks yesterday,” and called the arguments Bob raised as “a common trick” to confuse weather with climate.

After a few minutes of back-and-forth statements, Hansen slammed the door:

“I think the reason that you don’t understand things is that you don’t bother to listen! You just keep interrupting and bringing up a different point,” and then went on to counter Bob’s supposed evidence.

What’s significant here is Hansen’s willingness to counter opponents by pointing to their strategies before trying to provide actual data. Researchers often make a mistake when they assume that their rational arguments and overwhelming data will win an argument.

That only works when the opposition actually wants to reach a common accord and respects the evidence that science brings to the table. In areas where science collides with public policy — climate change, evolution versus intelligent design, animal rights, stem cell research, etc. — the reliance on fact over emotion is at best an uphill struggle.__Earle Holland

#

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
1 Comment »

Climate Lessons Learned

An important story we released a couple of weeks ago slipped under most people’s radar and, while that’s unfortunate, it does offer two lessons about how research news gets to the public, or in this case, doesn’t.

Geographer David Bromwich and colleagues published a new paper showing that major computer models used to define global climate change seem to do a lousy job when it comes to Antarctica. In this case, the models predicted temperatures 2.5 to 5 degrees higher than had actually occurred.

A year ago, another story on this same work, posted at our website, was viewed nearly 130,000 times and was the third-most popular story on the Eurekalert science news website. We later learned its popularity was linked to its adoption by those who deny the threat of climate change.

Importantly, neither study had suggested anything about climate change outside of the Antarctic.

Given that Bromwich firmly believes climate change is real, that notoriety was a burden, rather than the expected boon. So we girded for a repeat of that misinterpretation this time. Instead, two things happened:

First, the next day, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) announced the installation of a Automated Weather Station giant new supercomputer to study both climate change and severe weather.

And second, journalists noticed that the journal Nature, a few days earlier, had published a paper suggesting that the surface temperature of the North Atlantic had dropped and that this change might slow global warming for a decade or so.

Coverage of both new reports smothered the Bromwich work.

This offers two lessons for researchers:

What is major news at any point can be usurped unexpectedly by the next new thing – there are no foolproof predictions for the success of some science reporting;
And the care researchers take to precisely explain their studies is no guarantee that the public will ultimately get the message that scientists want to send.

For David Bromwich, however, the waning attention may simply mean that he’ll have fewer calls to answer from folks who want to use his work to promote their own agendas.__Earle Holland

#

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
No Comments »

A New Way of Talking Science . . .

As wondrous as research can be, providing new solutions to old problems and answers to long-standing questions, the more fascinating stories are often the ones left out of the news coverage, the ones the public never hears.

Limited by space and a perceived lack of interest by the public, the news media often neglect the “back story,” the information that colors ongoing research and changes the experiments from sketches to portraits.

Like all other parts of modern society, science exists in a much larger context than simply the results at the end of the day.

Science is, after all, a process – not a product.

At Ohio State, “telling the tale” of research rests largely with a small handful of staff who scour the campus, looking for research that’s both scientifically significant and fundamentally interesting. And at a campus as large as this one, that search seems much like being a kid in a candy store. Our website offers more than a taste.

But along with the fun of explaining science, there’s a strong responsibility to inform the public of advances that can improve citizens’ lives. As a public institution, Ohio State is obligated to share its new knowledge with all who would listen.

And we’re committed to doing just that.

In this space, we plan to share some of that behind-the-scenes information, to make the picture we paint of how science is done just a little more vibrant for all to see. While we’re old hands at explaining research, this approach will be new for us. So be patient.

We’ll look for the sidebars, the spices that flavor the meal. We’ll try our hand at humor when we find it, although we realize that what’s funny to some is tragic to others.

We’ll try not to offend, but we remember that the great beauty of a great university is its diversity of thought and opinion.

Some may take umbrage at our “telling tales out of school.” For that, we apologize in advance because we know that some researchers are not comfortable with showing how the sausage is made.

Above all, we’ll try to be fair and honest and truthful, and share the lessons we learn along the way. And we’ll welcome feedback . . . (as if unsolicited comment was ever a rarity on campus). Let us know what you think.

We believe that telling a broader story of science can only increase the public’s appreciation of it.

Only time will tell.__Earle Holland

#

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page